Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James Richardson v. Director For the Bureau of

February 28, 2011

JAMES RICHARDSON, PETITIONER,
v.
DIRECTOR FOR THE BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Renee Marie Bumb United States District Judge

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

BUMB, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the application of petitioner, James Richardson, for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and it appears that he qualifies for indigent status. For the reasons set forth below, however, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied for lack of merit.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, James Richardson ("Richardson"), brings this petition for a writ of mandamus against the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP").*fn1 The following factual allegations are taken from the petition, and are accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of petitioner's allegations.

Richardson seeks this Court to compel the BOP to perform duties allegedly mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G). This statute purportedly was created as part of the Second Chance Act and requires the BOP to provide incentives for prisoner participation in skills development programs. Richardson states that he has participated in over 15 skills development programs, but has not been extended any incentives within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G). (Petition, ¶¶ 3-5).

Richardson states that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and attaches the BOP responses to his Petition. In response to Richardson's administrative remedy, the Warden wrote, on April 6, 2010:

Your Education Transcript reveals you completed several courses in the Institution Release Preparation Program, and the Non-Residential Drug Abuse Program. Also, you received certificates for various classes and programs you completed while at this institution, copies of which are in your Central File. At your next regularly scheduled program review in August 2010, you will be reviewed for Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) placement according to the Second as respondents, although Richardson plainly did not name them as respondents. The error occurred presumably because petitioner listed his place of residence, the State of New Jersey, County of Burlington, on his affidavit immediately below his caption line. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to correct the docket and remove the State of New Jersey and County of Burlington as party respondents in this matter.

With regard to your request for a list of incentives, please be advised that there is no formal list of incentives offered by the Bureau of Prisons. Programs such as the Residential Drug Abuse Program and Leisure Time have incentives for successful completion including certificates, ceremonies, non-cash and cash awards, and other tangible incentives. This is for informational purposes only. (Warden's Response, Dated April 6, 2010, attached to Petition) (emphasis added)

The Regional Director, J. L. Norwood, responded similarly to Richardson's administrative appeal on May 18, 2010. (Administrative Appeal Response, Dated May 18, 2010, attached to Petition).

Richardson seeks mandamus relief, namely, he demands that he be provided with the "statutorily mandated incentives" as required by 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G).

II. ANALYSIS

Richardson seeks relief by a petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.